ULA rocket-reuse approach will likely differ from SpaceX’s

Reusability revival. Very interesting article on the different mindset that Tony Bruno brings to ULA compared to his predecessor, as well as to the reusability approach the Bruno has hinted at:

From the viewpoint of economic return, I like ULA’s approach and at first I wondered why SpaceX didn’t settle on a similar approach. Then I realized the answer:

SpaceX’s long-term strategy has always been a Martian colony. There’s no way to parachute-land or bouncy-ball land a huge facility on Mars — you need retro rockets to land the facility gently. Additionally, until you have a rocket manufacturing plant on Martian soil, you need rockets to be able to land and take off again to return colonists and supplies back to Earth as necessary.

ULA isn’t talking about a Martian mission, so their focus on recovering the most expensive part of the rocket (its engine), makes a lot of sense. It also likely means that they’ll get more cost savings from their approach than SpaceX’s, which may have some interesting effects down the line.